Not a week goes by without another story of an adult doing something colossally stupid on social media and paying the price. So why in the world did Facebook think it advisable to allow 13-year-old kids to make their pictures and status updates public?

In a widely-decried move, Facebook announced last week that underage users — those between 13 and 17, as kids younger than 13 are technically not allowed to open accounts — would now be able to share their status messages and updates with the world and accept “Followers” on the site. In non-tech terms, that means that teenagers can now make their pictures and life updates accessible to a group of people they don’t necessarily know (“Followers”) and the world at large.

Facebook said that it changed its mind on the long-standing privacy policy for underage users because “whether it comes to civic engagement, activism, or their thoughts on a new movie, they want to be heard.” The company also referred to teenagers as “among the savviest people using social media.”

Adults more familiar with teenage behavior disagreed.

Get Your Free Credit Score & Monitoring

Tech-Savvy, But Susceptible

Claire Lilley of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) in the U.K. told The Daily Mail,”It’s simply not acceptable for Facebook to expect children to take 100 percent responsibility for managing not just their settings but their levels of risk too; teenagers aren’t always going to be careful about what they post.”

Susan Linn, a psychiatry instructor at Harvard Medical School and the co-founder and director of the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, told NBC News, “Kids are familiar with a lot of different marketing and a lot of different brands, and they know how to use technological [sic], that’s incredibly clear,” but that “their judgment is still isn’t adult and they’re susceptible to manipulation.”

Facebook responded to criticism by pointing to a recent study by the Pew Internet & American Life Project about teens’ attitudes about social media. In it, teenagers told Pew that they believed that it was “not difficult at all” to manage their privacy settings on Facebook — which is not actual evidence that they are managing their privacy settings as well as they think, or that their ideas of appropriate privacy levels are similar to those of an adult. In another part of the survey, as noted by NBC News, only 9 percent of those same teens expressed much concern that advertisers and marketers might be gathering, let alone using, their data.

That’s not the even the worst of it — The Daily Mail pointed to a 40-hour study by the Internet Watch Foundation that discovered more than 12,000 self-generated pictures and videos by teens on pedophile websites. Today’s “cute” selfie — even when it’s not inappropriate — can quite easily become tomorrow’s pervert fodder, especially when one takes into account Facebook’s new “graph” search, which allows users to more easily find any public content.

The Guardians of Their Own Content?

I’ll be the first one to admit that a teenager can figure out all the new shortcuts in iOS7 faster than I can — which, like the joke about teenagers being the only ones able to program the family VCR so many years ago, makes them more intuitive about how the newest electronics and software work. This, however, does not make them more “savvy” about the implications of technology, privacy or the staying power of information the Internet. Few 13-year-olds are contemplating the repercussions of a Facebook faux pas on their job prospects after college.

While Facebook has repeatedly denied a financial motivation behind the privacy changes, it’s clear that the move is motivated by a desire to retain an audience thought to be abandoning the platform, and whose business model is accessing eyeballs and data for advertisers. You would think it would think twice about the implications of allowing underage kids’ information, pictures and words to be part of the public record. After all, the people running Facebook aren’t kids anymore.

This story is an Op/Ed contribution to Credit.com and does not necessarily represent the views of the company or its affiliates.

Image: Catherine Yeulet

Sign up for our weekly newsletter.

Sign up for our Credit Report Card and receive the latest tips & advice from our team of 50+ credit and money experts as well as a FREE Credit Score and action plan. Sign up now.

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

Certain credit cards and other financial products mentioned in this and other sponsored content on Credit.com are Partners with Credit.com. Credit.com receives compensation if our users apply for and ultimately sign up for any financial products or cards offered.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.